
Glass^ "£ 5^^ 
Book . "p5^ .-:^ 



A 

Letter 



TO THE 



ttON. HARRISON GRAY OTIS, — ^ 

A MEMBER OF THE SENATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, 



CN THE 

PRESENT STATE OF OUR NATIONAL AFFAIRS. 

WITH REMARKS 

VVOtf 

MR. P'ICxK:ERING'3 LETTER 



"iOVERJWR OF THE COMMOmVEALTH. 
OF MA^SACHUSETTTS. 



BY JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 



NEW-HAVEN, 
1S08. 



LETTER 

TO THE 

HON. HARRISON GRAY OTIS. 

Wajhington^ March SI, 1808, 

DEAR SIR3 



I 



HAVE received from one of my friends In 
Bofton, a copy of a printed pamphlet, containing a 
letter from Mr. Pickering to the governor of the 
commonwealth, intended for communication to the 
iegiflature of the ftate, during their feffion recently 
concluded. But this objeft not having been accom- 
pliflied, it appears to have been publifhed by fome 
friend of the writer, whofe inducement is ftated, no 
doubt truly, to have been the importance of the mat- 
ter difcuffed in it, and the high refpedability of 
the author. 

The fubjecls of this letter are the Embargo, and the 
differences in controverfy between our country and 
Great Britain — -fubjeds upon which it is my misfor- 
tune, in the difcharge of my duties as a Senator of the 
United States, to differ from the opinions of my col- 
league. The place where the queftion upon the firfl"" 
t)f them, in common with others of great national con- 
cern, was between him and me, in our official capaci- 
ties, a proper objecl of difcuflion, was the Senate of 
the union. There it was difcuffed, and, as far as the 
conilitutional authority of that body extended, there 
it was decided. Having obtained alike the concurrence 
of the other branch of the national Iegiflature, and the 
approbation of the Prefident, it became the law of 
the land, and as fuch I have coniidered it entitled to 
the refpecl and obedience of every virtuous citizen. 

From thefe decifions however, the letter in ques- 
tion is to be confidered in the nature of an appeal ; 
in the firfl inflance, to our common conftituents, the 
Iegiflature of the flate- — and in the fecond, by the 



publication, to the people. To both thefe tribunal^ 
i fhall always hold mylelf accountable for every ad 
of my pubUc life. Yet, were my own political char- 
acter alone implicated in the courfe which has in this 
inftance been purfued, I fhouldhave forborne all no- 
tice of the proceeding, and have left my condu6l 
in this, as in other cafes, to the candor and difcretion 
pf my country. 

But to this fpecies of appeal, thus conduced, there 
are fome objections on coirftitutional grounds, which 
I deem it my duty to mention for the confideratiori of 
the public. On a ftatement of circumftances attend- 
ing a very important act of national legiflation,a ftate- 
ment which the writer undoubtedly believed to be 
true, but* which comes only from one fide of the 
queftion, and which I exped:to prove, in the moft es- 
jienticii points, erroneous, the writer with the moft an- 
imated tone of energy calls for the inter pofition of the 
commercial fiaies, and afTerts that "nothing but 
their fenfe, clearly and emphatically expreffed, will 
favd them from ruin.*' This folemn and alarming 
invocation is addrefled to the legiflature of MalTa-f 
jchufetts, at fo late a period of their feflion, that had 
it been received by them, they mufl have been comr 
peiled either to ad upon the views of this reprefenta- 
tion, without hearing the counter flatement of the 
other fide, or feemingly to difregard the preffing inr 
terefl of their conftituents, by negleding an admonir 
tion of the niofl ferious complexion. Confidering 
the application as a precedent, its tendency is danger- 
ous to the public. For on the firfl fuppofition, that 
the legiflature had been precipitated to ad on the 
fpur of fuch an infligation, they mufl have acted ori 
imperfect imformation, and under an excitement, 
not remarkably adapted to the compofure of fafe 
(deliberation. On the fecond, they v/ould have been 
expofed to unjuil imputations, which at the eve of an 
election might have operated in the moft inequitable 
manner upon the characters of individual members. 

Tiie interpofition of one or more ftate legiflaturesj 
to control the exercife of the powers veiled by the 



generd coiiftitution in the congrefs of the United 
States, is at leaft of queftionable policy. The view's 
of a ftate legiflature are naturally and properly lim- 
ited in a confiderable degree to the particular interefls 
of a ftate. The very objecT; and formation of the 
National deliberative affernbiies was for the compro- 
inife and conciliation of the interefts of all — ^^of the 
whole nation. If the appeal from the regular, legiti- 
mate meafures of the body where the v/hole nation 
is reprefented, be proper to one ftate legiflature, it 
muft be fo to another. If the commercial iiates are 
called to interpofe on one hand, will not the agrir 
cultural ftates be with equal propriety fummoncd to 
interpofe on the other ? If the eall is ftimulated againfl 
the v/eft, and the northern and fouthern fections 
are urged into collifion with each other, by appeals 
from the afts of Congrefs to the refpect-ive itates — :h 
what are thefe appeals to end ? * 

It is undoubtedly the rig'ht, and may often be,r 
come the duty of the ftate legiflature to addrefs that 
of the nation, with the exprefiion of its wilhes, in 
regard to interefts peculiarly concerning the ftate 
itfeif. Nor fhall I queftion the right of every mem- 
ber of the great federative compa6f to declare its own 
fenfe of meafures interefting to the nation at large. 
But whenever the cafe occurs that this fenfe Iliould be 
" clearly and emphatically'' expreffed, it ought furely 
to be predicated upon a full and impartial confider- 
ation of the whole fubje<5l — not under the ftimulus 
of a one ftded reprefentation — far lefs upon the im- 
pulfe of conje<5lures and fufpicions. It is not through 
the medium of perfonal fenfibility, nor of party bias, 
nor of profellional occupation, nor of geographical 
pofition, that the whole truth can be difcerned, of 
queftions involving the rights and interefts of this cn- 
tcnfive union. When their difcuflion is urged upon 
a ftate legiflature, the firft call upon its members 
ihould be to caft ail their feehngs and interefts a^ the 
citizens of a fmgle ftate into the comm.on ftock of 
the national concern. 

Should the occurrence upon which an appeal h 



made from tlie Councils of the Nation, to thofe of t 
fingle State be one, upon which the reprefentation of 
the State had been divided, and the member who 
found himfelf in the minority, feh impelled by a fenfe 
of duty to invoke the interpofition of his Conftituents, 
it would feem that both in juftice to them, and in 
candor to his colleague, fome notice of fuch inten- 
tion fhould be given to him, that he too might be pre- 
pared to exhibit his views of the fubjecl upon which 
the difference of opinion had taken place ; or at leafl 
that the refort fhould be had, at fuch a period of time 
as would leave it within the reach of polhbihty for 
his reprefentations to be received, by their Common 
Conftituents, before they would be compelled to de" 
cide on the merits of the cafe. 

The fairnefs and propriety of this courfe of pro- 
ceeding muft be fo -obvious, that it is difficult to con^ 
ceive of the propriety of any other. Yet it prefents 
another inconvenience which muft necelTarily refult 
from this practice of appellate legiflation — When one 
of the fenators from a State proclaims to his conftitu- 
ents that a particular meafure, or fyftem of meafures 
which has received the vote and fupport of his col- 
league, are pernicious and deftru<ftive to thofe inter- 
efts which both are bound by the moft facred of ties, 
with zeal and fidelity to promote, the denunciation of 
the meafures amounts to little iefs than a denunciation 
of the man. The advocate of a poficy thus reprobat- 
-ed muft feel himfelf fummoned by every motive of 
felf-defence to vindicate his conduct : and if his gen- 
eral fenfe of his official duties would bind him to the 
induftrious devotion of his whole time to the public 
bufinefs of the Seflion, the hours which he might be 
forced to employ for his own juftification, would of 
courfe be deducted from the dilcharge of his more 
regular and appropriate functions. Should thefe oc- 
cafions frequently recur, they could not fail to inter- 
fere with the due performance of the public bufinefs. 
Nor can I forbear to remark the tendency of fuch an^ 
tagonizing appeals to diftraftthe Councils of the State 
in its own Legiflature, to deftroy its influence, and 



tfxpofe it to derifion, in the prefence of its filler States, 
and to produce between the colleagues themfelves 
mutual afperities and rancours, until the great con- 
cerns of the nation would degenerate into the puny 
controverlies of perfonal altercation. 

It is therefore with extreme reludance that I enter 
tipon this difcuflion. In developing my own views 
and the principles which have governed my con- 
dud in relation to our foreign affairs, and particularly 
to the Embargo, fome very material differences in 
point of faft as well as of opinion, will be found be- 
tween my ftatements, and thofe of the letter, which 
alone can apologize for this. They will not, I truft, 
be deemed in any degree difrefpeclful to the writer. 
Far more plealing would it have been to me, could 
that honeft and anxious purfuit of the policy beft cal- 
culated to promote the honour and welfare of our 
Country, which, I truft, is felt with equal ardour by 
tis both, have refulted in the fame opinions, and have 
given them the vigour of united exertion. There is 
a candour and liberality of conduct and of fentiment 
due from affociates in the fame public charge, to- 
wards each other, neceffary to their individual repu- 
tation, to their common influence, and to their public 
xifefulnefs. In our republican Government, where 
the power of the nation confifts alone in the fympa- 
thies of opinion, this reciprocal deference, this open 
hearted imputation of honeft intentions, is the only 
adamant at once attractive and impenetrable, that can 
bear, unftiattered, all the thunder of foreign hoftility. 
Ever fince I have had the honour of a feat in the 
National Councils, I have extended it to every depart- 
ment of the Government. However differing in my 
conclufions, upon queftions of the higheft moment, 
from any other man, of whatever party, 1 have never, 
upon fufpicion, imputed his condud to corrup- 
tion. If this confidence argues ignorance of public 
men and public affairs, to that ignorance I muft plead 
guUty. I know, indeed, enough of human nature to 
be fenfible that vigilant obfervation is at all times, 
and that fufpicion may occafionally become neceffary, 



iipon the condu<^ of men in poWer." But I know a^ . 
well that confidence is the only cement of an elective 
p-nvern men t— Election is the very teft of confidence — ^^ 
and its periodical return is the conftitutional check 
upon its abufe ; of which the electors muft of courfe 
be the fole judges. For the exercife of power, where 
man is free, confidence is indifpenfable — and when 
it once totally fails — w:hen the men to whom the peo- 
ple have committed the application of their force, for 
their benefit, are to be prefumed the vileft of man-?, 
kind, the very foundation of the fociai compaft muft 
be dilTolved. Towards the Gentleman whofe official 
ftation refults from, the confidence of the fame Legif- 
iature, by whofe appointment I have the honour of 
holding a fimilar truft, I have thought this confidence 
peculiarly ciue from me, nor fliould I now notice his 
letter, notwithftanding the difapprobation it fo obvi- 
Gufly implies at the courfe which I have purfued in 
relation to the fubjefts of which it treats, did it not 
appear to me calculated to produce upon the public 
mind, impreffions unfavourable to the rights and in= 
terefts of the nation. 

Having underftood that a motion in the Senate of 
Mallachufetts was made by you, requeftingthe Gov- 
ernor to tranfmit Mr. Pickering's letter to the Legis- 
lature, together with fuch communications, relating 
to public aillih's, as he might have received from me, 
I avail myfelf of that circumftance, and of the friend- 
ihip which has fo long fubiifted between us, to take 
the liberty of addrefling this letter, intended for pub- 
lication, to you. Very few of the fads which I fhall 
ftate will reft upon information peculiar to myfelf- — 
Moft of them will ftand upon the bafis of olficial 
documents, or of public and undifputed notoriely. 
For my opinions, though fully perfuaded, that even 
where differing from your own, they will meet with 
a fair and liberal judge in you, yet of the public 1 afk- 
neither favour nor indulgence. Pretending to no ex- 
traordinary credit from the authority of the writer, I- 
am lenfible they muft fall by their own weaknefs, or 
ilaud by their own ftrength. 



§ 

The firft remark which obtrudes itfelf upon tlii 
Jnind, on the perul'al of Mr. Pickering's letter is, that 
in enumerating all the pretences (^fur he tliinks there 
are no caufes) for the Embargo, and for a War with 
Great-Britain, he has totally omitted the Britifh or- 
ders of Council ot November 11, 1807, thofe or- 
ders under which millions of the property of our" 
fellow citizens, are now detained in Britifli hands, or 
confifcated to Britifh captors, thofe orders, under 
which tenfold as many millions of the fame property 
would have been at this moment in the fame predica- 
ment, had they not been faved from expolure to it by 
the Embargo, thofe orders, which if once fubmitted td 
and carried to the extent of their principles, would not 
have left an inch of American canvafs upon the ocean, 
but under Britifh licence and Britilh taxation. An 
attentive reader of the letter, without ©ther informa- 
tion, would not even fufpecl their exiftence. They 
are indeed in one or two paifages, faintly, and darkly 
alluded to under the juftifying defcription of " the 
orders of the Britifli Government, retaHat'nig the 
French imperial decree :" but as caufes for the Em- 
bargo, or as poffible caufes or even pretences of War 
with Great Britain, they are not only unnoticed, but 
their very exiftence is by direct implication denied^ 

It is indeed true that thefe orders were not ofllciaK 
ly communicated with the Prefident's Meifage re- 
commending the Embargo. They had not been offi- 
cially received — ^but they were announced m feveral 
paragraphs from London and Liverpool Newfpapers 
of the 10th, 11th and 12th of November, which ap- 
peared in the National Intelligencer of 18th Decem- 
ber, the day upon which the Embargo Meflage w^s 
fent to Congrefs. The Britifli o-overnment had taken 
care that they ihould not be authentically known bc:- 
fore their tinie — ^^for the very fame newfpapers which 
gave this inofficial notice of thefe orders, a:nnouncetl 
alfo the departure of Mr, Rofe, upon a fpecial mil- 
lion to the United States. And we now know that '.;: 
thefe all-devouring inftrumients of rapine, Mr. Rof^ 
Svas not even informed. His million was profelTedlv 

B 



10 

a mifijon of conciliation and reparation for a flasfranf 
— enormous — -acknowledged outrage. But he Was" 
not fent with thefe orders of Council in his hands.-—' 
His text, was the' difavowal of Admiral Berkley's 
conduct — The commenta>ry was to be dilcovered on 
another page of the Britifli minifteriai policy t— On the 
face of Mr. R(^fe's inftructions, thefe orders of Coun- 
cil were as inviiible, as they are on that of Mr. Pick- 
ering's letter. 

They were not merely without official authenticity. 
Rumours had for feveral weeks been in circulation, 
derived from Englilh prints, and from pnvate corref- 
pondence, that fuch orders were to iffue ; and no 
incondderable pains were taken here to difcredit the 
fact. Aifarances were given that there was reafon 
to believe no fuch orders to be contemplated. Sufpi- 
cion was lulled by declarations equivalent nearly to a 
politive denial ; and thefe opiates were continued for 
wrecks after the Embargo was laid, until Mr. Erfkine 
received inilruclions to make the official comm.unica- 
tion of the orders themfelves, in their proper fliape, 
to our Government. 

Yet, although thus unauthenticated, and even al= 
though thus in fome fort denied, the probability of 
the circumftances under which they were announced, 
and the fweeping tendency of their effects, formed to 
my underfcanding a powerful motive, and together 
with the papers fent by the Prefident and his exprefs 
recommendation, a decifive one, for aflenting to the 
Embargo. As a precautionary meafure, I believed it 
would refcue an immenfe property from depredation, 
if the orders fhould prove authentic. If the alarm 
was groundlefs it mufl very foon be difproved, and 
the embargo might be removed with the danger. 

The omiiTimi of all notice of thefe facts in the pref- 
fmg enquiries " why the Embargo was laid r" is the' 
more furprifing, becaufe they are of all the fafts, the 
inoit material, upon a fair and impartial examination 
of the expediency of that Ad:, when it paffed — And 
becaufe thefe orders, together with the fubfequent 
" retaliating decrees of France and Spain, have fur- 



11 

iilifhed the only reafons upon which I have acqulefced 
in its continuance to this day. If duly weighed, they 
will fave us the trouble of reforting to jealoulies of 
fecret corruption, and the imaginary terrors of Napo- 
lean for the real caufe of the Embargo. Thefe are 
fictions of foreign invention — The French Emperor 
had not declared that he would have no neutrals— ^He 
had 7iot required that our ports fliould be iliut againft 
Britiili Commerce — but the orders of Council if fub- 
mitted to would have degraded us to the condition of 
Colonies. Ifreliifed would have fattened the wolves 
of plunder with our fpoils. The Embargo was the 
only flielter from the Tempeft — The ialt refuge of 
our violated Peace. 

I have indeed been myfelf of opinion that the Em- 
bargo, muft in its nature be a temporary expedient, 
and that preparations manifeiling a determination of 
refinance arainft thefe outraQ:eous violations of our 
neutral rights ought at Icaft to have been made a fub- 
iect of ferious deliberation in Consrefs. I have be- 
lieved and do ftill believe that our internal refources 
are competent to the eilablifhment and maintainance 
^ofanaval force public and private, if not fully ade- 
quate to the proieclion and defence of our Commerce, 
at lead fuf&cient to induce a retreat from thefe hoRil- 
ities and to deter from a renewal of them, by either 
of the warring parties ; and that a iyftem to that effed 
might be formed, ultimately far more economical, and 
certainly more energetic than a three years Embargo. 
Very foon after the ciofure of our Ports, I did fub.- 
mit to the conllderation of the Senate, a propofition 
for the appointment of a committee to inftitute an en- 
quiry to this end. But myrefolution met no encour- 
agement. Attempts of a limilar nature have been 
made in the Hoiife of Reprefentatives, but have been 
equally difcountenanced, and from thefe determina- 
tions by decided majorities of both houfes, I am not 
fulEciently confident in the fuperiority of my own 
Wifdom to appeal, by a topical application to the con- 
genial feelings of any one — not even of my own na- 
tive Scdion uf the Union. 



1? 

The Embargo, however, is a reftri(^ion always uji« 
der our own controui. It was a meafure altogether of 
defiance, and of experiment — ^If it was injudicioully or 
over-haftily laid, it has been every daylince its adop- 
tion open to a repeal : if it fliould prove ineffe<5lual 
ior the purpofes which it was meant to fecure, a fin^ 
gle day will fuffice to unbar the doors Still believ- 
ing it a meafure juftified by the circumftances of the 
time, I am ready to admit that thofe who thought 
otherwife may have had a wifer foreiight of events, 
and a founder judgment of the then exifting {late of 
thingfj than the majority of the National Legiilature, 
and the Preiident. It has been approved by feveral 
of the Stale Legiilatures, and among the reft by our 
own. Yet of all its effeds we are ftill unable to judge 
with certainty. It muft ftill abide the teft of futuri- 
ty. 1 ihall add that there were other motives which 
had their operation in contributing to the paffage of 
the act, unnoticed by Mr. Pickering, and which bav- 
in sr now ceafed will alfo be left unnoticed bv me. 
Xhe orders of Council of 1 1th Nov. ftill fabftft in a]! 
their force; and are now confirmed, with the additi- 
on of taxation, by ad of Parliament. 

As Lheyftandin front of the real caufes for the 
Embctrgo, fo they are entitled to the fame pre-emi- 
nence in enumerating the caufes of hoftility which 
the Britifh Minifters are accumulating upon our for- 
bearance. They ftrike at the root of our independence. 
They aifume the principle that we fliall have no com- 
jnerce in time of war, but with her dominions, and as 
tributaries to her. The exclufive confinement of 
commerce to the motiier country, is the great princi- 
ple of the modern colonial fyftem ; and fhould we by 
a derelidion of our rights at this momentous ftride of 
encroachment furrender our commercial freedom with- 
out a ftruggle, Britain has but a fingle ftep more to 
take, and (he brings us back to the ftamp ad and the 
tea tax. 

Yet thefe orders — -thus fatal to the liberties for 
which the fa-.^es and heroes of our revolution toiled 
^nd bled — thus ftudiouflv concealed until the mo^ 



15 

fiient when they burft upon our heads — thus ilfued 
3t the verj' inftant when a niiflion of atonement was 
profefTedly fent — in thefe orders we are to fee no- 
thing but a " retaliating order upon France*' — in 
thefe orders, we muft not find fo much as a caufe — 
nay not fo much as a pretence, for complaint againft 
Britain. 

Xo my mind. Sir, in comparifon with thofe orders, 
the three caufes to which Mr. Pickering explicitly li- 
mits our grounds for a rupture with England, might 
indeed be jufUy denominated pretences — in compari- 
fon with them, former aggreflions fink into infig- 
nificance. To argue upon the fubjeft of our difputes 
with Britain, or upon the motives for the Embargo, 
and keep them out of fight, is like laying your finger 
over the unit before a feries of noughts, and then 
arithmetically proving that they all amount to nothing. 

It is not however in a mere omiilion, nor yet in the 
liiftcry of the Embargo, that the inaccuracies of the 
llatement I am examining have given me the moft 
fcrious concern— r-it is in the view taken of the quefr 
tions in controverfy between us and Britain. The 
wifdom of the Embargo is a quefi:ion of great, but 
tranfient magnitude, and omxiffion facrifices no na- 
tional right. Mr. Pickering's objed: was to dififuade 
the nation from a war with England, into which he 
fufpeded the adminiftration was plunging us, under 
French compulfion. But the tendency of his pam- 
phlet is to reconcile the nation, or at leaft the com- 
mercial dates, to the fervitude of Britifli protection, 
and war with ail the reft of Europe,., Elcnce England 
is renrefented as contendino: for the common liberties 
of mankind, and our only lafe-guard againft the ambi- 
tion and injuftice of France. Hence all cur fenfibili- 
ties are invoked in her favour, and all our antipathies 
againft her antagonift. Hence too all the ftjbjecls of 
differences between us and Britain are alledged to be 
on our part vnevQ pretences, of which the right is une- 
quivocally pronounced to be on her fide. Proceeding 
from a Senator of the United States, fpecially charged. 
i^s a member of the executive with the maintenanec 



14 

of the nation's riglits, againft foreign powers, and at 
a moment extremely critical of pending negotiation 
upon all the points thus delineated, this formal abanr 
d^mnent of the American caufe, this fummons of un- 
conditional furrender to the pretenfions gf our anta- 
gonift, is in my mind highly alarming. It becomes 
therefore a duty to which every other conlideration 
mud yield to point out the errors of this reprefenta- 
tion Before we ftrike the ftandard of the nation, le^ 
us at leaft examine the purport of the fummons. 

And firft, with refpe<5t to the impreffment of our 
feamen. We are told that " the taking of Britilh fear 
men found on board our merchant voitels, by Britilh 
{hips of war, is agreeably to a rights claimed and exr 
ercifed for a2:es." It is obvious that this claim and 
exercife of ages, could not apply to us, as an independr 
ent people. If the right was claimed and exercifed 
while our veffels were navigating under the Britiflt 
flag, it could not authorize the fame claim when their 
ov/ners have become the citizens of a fovereign ftate. 
As a relidt of colonial fervitude, whatever may be the 
claim of Great Britain, it fureiy can be no ground for 
contending that it is entitled to our fubrnilTion. 

If it be meant t at the right has been claimed and 
exercifed for ages over the merchant veiTeis of other 
nations, I apprehend it is a miftake. The cafe never 
occurred with fufficient frequency to conftitute even 
a pradice, much lefs a right. If it had been either, 
it would have been noticed by fome of the writers on 
the laws of nations. The truth is, the queftion arofe 
out af American Independence — ^from the feverance 
of one nation into two. It was never made a queftion 
betv/een any other nations. There is therefore no 
right of prefcription. 

But, it feems, it has alfo been claimed and exercifed^ 
during the whole of the three Adminiftiations of our 
national Government, And is it meant to hi aiferted 
that this claim and exercife conftitute a right ? If it 
is, I appeal to the uniform, unceafing and urgent rer 
monftrances of the three adminiftrations — I appeal 
not only to the warm feelings, but cool juftice of the 



American people— nay, I appeal to the found fenfe 
and honorable lentiment ot the Britifli nation itfelf, 
which, however it may have fubmitted at home to 
this practice, never would tolerate its fandion by law, 
againft the affertion. If it is not, how can it be af- 
firmed that it is on our part a mere pretence ? 

But the firft merchant of the United States, in an- 
fwer to Mr. Pickerings late enquiries has informed 
him that fmce the affiiir of the Chesapeake there has 
been no caufe of complaint — that he could not find a 
fmgle inftance where they had taken one man out of 
a merchant veffel. Who it is that enjoys the dignity 
of firft merchant of the United States we are not in- 
formed. But if he had applied to many merchants in 
Bofton as refpe<?l:able as any in the United States, they 
could have told him of a valuable veffel and cargo, 
totally loft upon the coaft of England, late in Augu^ 
laft, and folely in confequence of having had two of 
her men, native Americans, taken from her by impreff- 
ment, two months after the affair of the Chesapeake. 

On the 15th of October, the king of England iffued 
his proclamation, commanding his naval officers, to im- 
prefs his fubjects from neutral veffels. This procla- 
mation is reprefented as merely " requiring the return 
of his fubje6ts, the feamen efpecially, from foreign 
countries,'* and then " it is an acknowledged princi- 
ple that every nation has a right to the fervice of its 
fubjects in time of war." Is this, fir, a correct ftate- 
m>ent either of the proclamation, or of the queftion 
it involves in which our right is concerned ? The king 
of England's right to the fervice of his fubje6ts in 
time of war is nothing to us. The queftion is, whe- 
ther he has a right to feize them forcibly on board of 
our veffels v/hile under contract of fervice to our citi- 
zens, within our jurifdiction upon the high feas ? And 
whether he has a right exprefsly to command his na- 
val ofEcers fo to feize them — Is this an acknowledsfed 
principle ? certainly not. Why then is this procla- 
mation defcribed as founded upon uncontefted prin- 
ciple ? and why is the com.m.and, so juftly offenfive 
to us, and so mifchievous-as it might then have been 
made in execution, altogether omitted ? 



16 

But it is not the taking of Britifh fubjeds from oiir 
Veflels, it is the taking under color of that pretence 
our own native American citizens, which conftitutes 
the moft galling aggravation of this mercilefs practice. 
Yet even this, we are told is but a pretence — for three 
reafons. 

1. Becaufe the number of citizens thus taken, is 
small. 

2. Becaufe it arifes only from the impoffibility of 
diftinguifhing Engliflimen from Americans. 

3. Becaufe, such impreffed American citizens are 
delivered up, on duly authenticated proof, 

1. Small and great in point of numbers are relative 
terms. To fuppofe that the native Americans form a 
fmall proportion of the whole number impreffed is a 
miftake — The reverfe is the fad. Examine the cfE- 
cial returns from the department of fiate. They give 
the names of between four and five thoufand men im.- 
preffed lince the commencement of the prefent war. 
Of which number not one fifth part were Britifh fub- 
jecls — The number of naturalized Americans could 
not amount to one tenth — -I hazard little in faying, 
that more than three fourths were native Americans. 
If it be faldthat fome of thefe men, though appearing 
on the face of the returns American citizens, were re- 
ally Britifti fubjeds, and had fraudulently procured 
their protedlons ; I rep]y that this number muft be' 
far exceeded by the cafes of citizens impreffed, which 
never reach the department of (late^ The American 
conful in London eftlmates the number of impreff- 
ments during the war at nearly three times the am- 
ount of the names returned. If the nature of the of- 
fence be confidered in its true colors, to a people hav- 
ing a jufl: fenfe of pcrfonal liberty and fecurlty, it is 
in every fingle inftanco, of a malignity not inferior 
to that of murder. The very fame ad, w^hen com- 
mitted by the recruiting ofncer of one nation within 
the territories of another, is by the univerfal law^ and 
ufage of nations punifhed with death. Suppofe the 
crime had in every inftance, as by its eonfequences it 
has been in many, deliberate murder. Would it an- 



17 

swer or silence the voice of our complaints to be told 
that the number was small ? 

2. The impossibility of distinguishing English 
from American seamen is not the only, nor even the 
most frequent occasion of impressment. Look again 
into the returns from the Department of State — you will 
see that the officers take our men without pretending 
to enquire where they were born; sometimes merely 
to shew their animosity, or their contempt for our 
country ; sometimes from the wantonness of power. 
When they manifest the most tender regard for the 
neutral rights of America, they lament that they want 
the men. They regret the necessity, but they inust 
have their complement. When we complain of these 
enormities, we are answered that the acts of such offi- 
cers were unauthorised; that the commanders of 
Men of War, are an unruly set of men, for whose vio- 
lence their own Government cannot always be answer- 
able — that enquiry shall be made — A Court Martial 
is sometimes mentioned — And the issue of Whitby's 
Court- Martial has taught us what relief is to be ex- 
pected from that. There are even examples I am 
told, when such officers have been put upon the yel- 
low list. But this is a rare exception. — The ordinary 
issue when the act is disavowed, is the promotion of 
the actor. 

3. The impressed native American Citizens how- 
ever, upon duly authenticated proofs are delivered up. 
Indeed ! how unreasonable then were complaint ! how 
effectual a remedy for the wrong ! An American ves- 
sel, bound to a European port, has two, three or four 
native Americans, impressed by a British Man of 
War, bound to the East or West Indies. When the 
American Captain arrives at his port of destination, he 
makes his protest, and sends it to the nearest Ameri- 
can Minister or Consul. When he returns home, he 
transmits the duplicate of his protest to the Secretary 
of State. In process of time, the names of the im- 
pressed men, and of the Ship into which they have 
been impressed, are received by the Agent in Lon- 
don. He makes his demand that the men may be 

C 



18 

delivered up. — llie Lords of the Admiralty, after a. 
reasonable time for enquiry and advisement, return for 
answer, that the Ship is on a foreign Station, and their 
Lordships can therefore take no further steps in the 
matter — Or, that the ship has been taken, and that the 
men have been received in exchange for French pris- 
oners — Or, that the men had no protections (the im- 
pressing officers often having taken them from the 
men) — Or, that the men were probably British subjects. 
Or that they have entered, and taken the Bounty; 
(to which the officers know how to reduce them.) 
Or, that they have been married or settled in England. 
In all these cases, without further ceremony, their dis- 
charge is refused. Sometimes, their Lordships, in a 
vein of humor, inform the agent that the man has 
been discharged as iin&ei'v'iceable. Sometimes, in a 
sterner tone, they say he was an impost er. Or pler- 
haps by way of consolation to his relatives and friends, 
they report that he has fallen in Battle, against nations 
in Amity with his Country. Sometimes they coolly 
return that there is 7%o such man o?i board the ship ; 
and what has become of him, the agonies of a wife and 
children in his native land may be left to conjecture. 
When all these and many otl"ber such apologies for re- 
fusal fail, the native American seaman is discharged — 
and when by the charitable aid of his Government he 
has found his way home, he comes to be informed, 
that all is as it should be — that the number of his fel- 
low-sufferers is small — that it was impossible to dis- 
tinguish him from an Englishman — and that he was 
delivered up, on duly authenticated proof. 

Enough of this disgusting subject — I cannot stop 
to calculate how many of these wretched victims are 
natives of Massachusetts, and how many natives of 
Virginia — I cannot stop to solve that knotty question 
of national jurisprudence, whether some of them might 
not possibly be slaves, and therefore not Citizens of 
the United States — I cannot stay to account for the 
wonder, why, poor, and ignorant, and friendless as 
most of them are, the voice of their complaints is so^ 
seldom heard in the great navigating States. I ad- 



19 

mit that we have endured this cruel indignity, through 
all the administrations of the General Government. — I 
acknowledge that Britain claims the right of seizing 
her subjects in our merchant vessels, and that even if 
we could acknowledge it, the line of discrimination 
would be difficult to draw. We are not in a condition 
to maintain this right, by War, and as the British 
Government have been more than once on the point of 
giving it up of their own accord, I \voiild still hope for 
the day when returning Justice shall induce them to 
abandon it, without compulsion. Her subjects we do 
not want. The degree of protection wJiich we are 
bound to exteiKl to them, cannot equal the claim of 
our own citizens. I would subscribe to any compro- 
mise of this contest, consistent with the rights of sove- 
reignty, the duties of humanity, and the principles of 
reciprocity ; but to the right of forcing even her own 
subjects out of our merchant vessels on the high seas^ 
I never can assent. 

The second point upon v\iiich Mr. Pickering defends 
the pretensions of Great-Britain, is her denial to neu- 
tral nations of the right of prosecuting with her enemies 
and their colonies, any commerce from which they are 
excluded in time of peace. His statement of this case 
adopts the British doctrine, as sound. The right, as on 
the question of impressment, so on this, it surrenders at 
discretion— and it is equally defective in point of fact. 

In the first place, the claim of Great-Britain is not to 
*' a right of imposing on this neiiitral commerce souie 
lijiiits and restraints''' — but of interdicting it altogether, 
at her pleasure, of interdicting it without a momenta's 
notice to neutrals, after solemn decisions of her courts 
of admiralty, and formal acknowledgnients of her min- 
isters, that it is a lawful trade — And, on such a sudden, 
unnotified interdiction of pouncing upon all neutral com- 
merce navigating upon the faith of her decisions arid ac- 
knowledgments, and of gorging with confiscation the 
gi-eediness of her cruisers — This is the right claimed by 
Britain — This is the power she has exercised — What 
Mr. Pickering ' calls "limits and restraints,'* slie calk, 
relaxations of her right. 



m 



20 

It is but little more than two years, since this question 
was agitated both in England and America, with as 
much zeal, energy, and ability, as ever was displayed 
upon any question of national Law. The British side 
was supported by Sir William Scott, Mr. Ward, and 
the author of War in Disguise. But even in Britain 
their doctrine was refuted to demonstration by the Edin- 
burgh reviewers. In America, the rights of our coun- 
try were maintained by numerous writers, profoundly 
skilled in the science of national and maritime Law. The 
Aiisiver to War in Disguise was ascribed to a gentleman 
whose talents are universally acknowledged, and who by 
his official situations had been required thoroughly to in- 
vestigate every question of conflict between neutral and 
belligerent rights which has occurred in the history of 
modern War. Mr. Gore and Mr. Pinckney, our two 
commissioners at London, under Mr. Jay's Treaty, the 
former, in a train of cool and conclusive argument ad- 
dressed to Mr. Madison, the latter in a memorial of 
splendid eloquence from the Merchants of Baltimore, 
supported the same cause ; memorials, drawn by law- 
yers of distinguished eminence, by Merchants of the 
highest character, and by statesmen of long experience in 
our national councils, came from Salem, from Boston, 
from New-Haven, from New- York andfrom Philadelphia, 
together with remonstrances to the same effect from New- 
buryport, Newport, Norfolk and Charleston. This ac- 
cumulated mass of legal learning, of commercial infor- 
mation, and of national sentiment, from almost every in- 
habited spot upon our shores, and from one extremity of 
the union to the other, confirmed by the unanswered and 
unanswerable memorial of Mr. Munroe to the British 
minister, and by the elaborate research and irresistible 
reasoning of the exammation of the British doctrine, was 
also made a subject of full and deliberate discussion in 
the Senate of the United States. A committee of seven 
members of that body, after three weeks of arduous in- 
vestigation, reported three resolutions, the first of which 
was in these words — " Resolved that the capture and con- 
demnation, under the orders of the British government, 
and adjudications of their courts of admiralty, of Ameri- 
can vessels and their cargoes, on the pretext of their being 



21 

employed in a trade with the enemies of Great Britain, 
prohibited in time of peaee, is an iniprovoked aggres- 
sion upon the pro^^erty of the citizens of these United 
States, a violation of their neutral rights, and an en- 
croachment upon their national Independence.'''' > 

On the, 13th of Februar}% 1806, the question upon 
the adoption of this Resolution, was taken in the Sen- 
ate. The yeas and nays were required ; but not a 
solitary nay was heard in ans^ver. It was adopted by 
the unanimous voice of all the Senators present. They 
were twenty-eight in number, and among them stands 
recorded the name of Mr. Pickering. 

Let us remember that this was a question most pe- 
culiarly and immediately of comjnercialy and not agri- 
cultural interest ; that it arose fi'om a call, loud, energet- 
ic and unanimous, from all the merchants of the United 
States upon Congress, for the national interposition ; 
that many of the memorials invoked all the energy of 
the Legislature, and pledged the lives and properties 
of the memorialists in support of any meiasures v>iiich 
Congress might deem necessary to vindicate tliose 
rights. Negociation was particularly recommended 
from Boston, and elsew^here — negociation was adopted 
— negociation has failed — and no^v Mr. Pickering tells 
us that Great Britain has claimed and maintained her 
right ! He argues that her claim is just — and is not 
sparing of censure upon those who still consider it as a 
serious cause of complaint. 

But there was one point of view in which the Brit- 
ish doctrine on this question was then only consider- 
ed incidentally in the United States — because it was 
not deemed material for the discussion of our rights. 
We examined it chiefly as affecting the principles as 
between a belligerent and a neutral po^ver. But in 
fact it was an infringement of the rights of War, as 
well as of the rights of Peace. It was an unjustifiable 
enlargement of the sphere of hostile operirdons. The 
enemies of Great Britain had by the universal Law of 
Nations a right to the benefits of neutral Commerce 
within their dominions (subject to the exceptions of 
actual blockade and contraband) as well as neuti-al na- 



22 

tions had a right to trade with them. The exclusion 
from that commerce b)^ this new principle of warfare 
which Britain, in defiance of all inikncmorial national 
usages, undertook by her single authority to establish, 
but too naturally led her enemies to resort to new and 
extraordinary principles, by which in their turn they 
might retaliate this injury upon her. The pretence 
upon which Britain in the first instance had attempted 
to color her injustice, was a miserable fiction — It was 
an argument against fact. Her reasoning was, that a 
neutral vesoel by mere admission in time of war, into 
Ports from which it would have been excluded in 
time of peace, became thereby deprived of its national 
character, and ipso facto was transformed into enemy's 
property. 

Such "was the basis upon which arose the far famed 
rule of the war of 1756 — Such was the foundation upon 
which Britain claimed and maintained this supposed 
right of adding that new instrument of desolation to the 
horrors of war — It was distressing to her enemy — 
yes ! Had she adopted the practice of dealing with 
them in poison — Had Mr. Fox accepted the services 
of the man who offered to rid him of the French E:n- 
peror by assassination, and had the attempt succeeded, 
it would have been less distressing to France than this 
rule of the war of 1756 ; and not more unjustifiable. — 
Mr. Fox had too fiiir a m^ind for either, but his com- 
prehensive and liberal spirit was discarded, with the 
Cabinet which he had formed. 

It has been the struggle of reason and humanity, 
and above all of Christianity for two thousand years to 
mitigate the rigors of that scourge of human kind, 
War. It is now the struggle of Britain to aggravate 
them. Her rule of the war of 1756, in itself and in its 
effects, was one of the deadliest poisons, in which it 
was possible for her to tinge the "weapons of her hos- 
fility. 

in itself and in its effects, I say — For the French 
decrees of Berlin and of Milan, the Spanish and 
Dutch decrees of the same or the like tenor, and her 
own orders of January and No^xmbcr — these alterna- 

Lora 



23 

lions of licenced pillage, this eager competition be- 
tween her and her enemies for the honor of g-iving the 
last stroke to the yitals of maritime nciitralit;-, all are 
justly attributable to her assumption and exercise of 
this single principle. The rule of the war of 1756 
was the root, from which all the rest iue but suckers, 
still at every shoot growing ranker in luxuriance. 

In the last decrees of France and Spain, her own in- 
genious fiction is adopted ; and under them, every neu- 
tral vessel that submits to English search, has been car- 
ried into an English port, or paid a tax to the English 
government, is declared denationalized^ that is, to have 
lost her national character, and to have become Eng- 
lish property. This is cruel in execution ; absurd in 
argument. To refute it were folly ; for to the under- 
standing of a child it refutes itself. But it is the rea- 
soning of British Jurists. It is the simple application 
to the circumstances and powers of France, of the rule 
of the war of 1756. 

I am not the apologist of France and Spain ; I have 
no national partialities ; no national attachments but 
to my own countr}\ I shall never undertake to justify 
or to palliate the insults or injuries of any foreign 

fower to that country which is dearer to me than life, 
f the voice oP Reason and of Justice could be heard 
by France and Spain, they would say- --you have done 
wrong to make the injustice of your enemy towiu-ds 
neutrals the measure of your own. If she chastises 
with whips, do not you chastise with scorpions ?— 
Whether France would listen to this language, I know 
not. Tiie most enormous infractions of our rights 
hitherto committed by her, ha^•e b^en more in menace 
than in accomplishment. The alarm has l3een justly 
great ; the anticipation threatening ; but the amount 
of actual injury small. But to Britain, what can we 
say ? If we attempt to raise our voices, her Minister 
has declared to Mr. Pinckney that she \\\\\ not hear. 
The only reason she assigns for her recent orders of 
Council is, that France proceeds on the same princi- 
ples. It is not by the light of blazing temples, and 
amid the groans of women and children perishing in 
the ruins of the sanctuaries of domestic habitation at 



24 

Copenhagen, that we can expect our remonstrances 
against this course of proceeding will be heard. 

Let lis come to the third and last of the causes of 
complaint, which are represented as so frivolous and 
so unfounded — "the unfortunate affair of the Chesa- 
peake." The ordersof Admiral Berkley, under which 
this outrage was committed, have been disavowed by 
his Government. General professions of a willingness 
to make reparation for it, have been lavished in pro- 
fusion ; and we are now instructed to take these pro- 
fessions for endeavors ; to believe them sincere, be- 
cause his Britannic Majesty sent us a special envoy ; 
and to cast the odium of defeating these endeavors up- 
on our own government. 

I have already told you, that I am not one of those 
who deem suspicion and distrust, in the highest order 
of political virtues. Baseless suspicion is, in my esti- 
mation, a vice, as pernicious in the management of 
public affairs, as it is fatal to the happiness of domestic 
life. When, therefore, the British Ministers have 
declared their disposition to make ample reparation 
for an injury of a most atrocious character, committed 
by an officer of high rank, and, as they say, utterly 
without authority, I should most readily believe them, 
w^ere their professions not positively contradicted by 
facts of more powerful eloquence than words. 

Have such facts occurred ? I will not again allude to 
the circumstances of Mr. Rose's departure upon his 
mission at such a precise point of time, that his Com- 
mission and the orders of Council of 11th November, 
might have been signed with the same penful of ink. 
The subjects were not immediately connected with 
each other, and his Majesty did not chuse to associ- 
ate distinct topics of negociation. The attack upon 
the Chesapeake was disavowed ; and ample reparation 
was withheld only, because with the demand for satis- 
faction upon that injury, the American Government 
had coupled a demand for the cessation of others; 
alike in kind, but of minor aggravation. But had rep- 
aration really been intended, would it not have been 
offered, not in vague and general terms, but in precise 
and specific proposals ? Were any such made ? None» 



25 

But it is said Mr. Monr«e was restricted from negocia- 
ting upon this subject apart ; and therefore Mr. Rose 
was to be sent to Washington ; charged with this 
single object ; and without authority to treat upon 
or even to discuss any other. Mr. Rose arrives — 
The American government readily determine to treat 
upon the Chesapeake affair, separately from all others ; 
but before Mr. Rose sets his foot on shore, in pursuance 
of a pretension made before by Mr. Canning, he con- 
nects with the negociation, a subject far more distinct 
from the butchery of the Chesapeake, than the general 
impressment of our seamen, I mean the Proclamation, 
interdicting to British ships of war, the entrance of our 
harbors. 

The great obstacle which has always interfered in the 
adjustment of our differences with Britain, has been that 
she would not acquiesce in the only principle upon which 
fair negociation between independent nations can be con- 
ducted, the principle of reciprocity, that she refuses the 
application to us of the claim which she asserts for her- 
self. The forcible taking of men from an American 
vessel, was an essential part of the outrage upon the 
Chesapeake. It was the ostensible purpose for which 
that act of war unproclaimed, was committed. The 
President's Proclamation was a subsequent act, and was 
avowedly founded upon many similar aggressions, of 
^\^hich that was only the most aggravated. 

If then Britain could with any color of reason claim 
that the general question of impressment should be laid 
out of the case altogether, she ought upon the principle 
of reciprocity to have laid equally out of the case the 
proclamation, a measure so easily separable from it, an(i 
in its nature merely defensive. Wlien therefore she 
made the repeal of the Proclamation an indispensable 
preliminary to all discussion upon the nature and extent 
of thart reparation which she had offered, she refused to 
treat with us upon the footing of an independent power. 
She insisted upon an act oflself-degradation on our part, 
Ijefore she would even tell us what redress she would 
condescend to grant for a great and acknowledged 
wrong. This was a condition which she could not but 
knoAv to be inadmissible, and is of itself proof nearly 
D 



26 

conclusive that her Cabinet ne^er intended to make for 
that wrong any reparation at all. 

But this is not all — It cannot be forgotten that when 
that atrocious deed was committed, amidst the general 
burst of indignation which resounded from every part 
of this Union, there were among us a small number of 
persons, w^ho upon the opinion that Berkley's orders were 
authorized by his government, undertook to justify 
them in their fullest extent — These ideas, probably first 
propagated by British official characters in this country, 
were persisted in until the disavowal of the British Go- 
vernment took away the necessity for persevering in 
them, and gave notice where the next position was to be 
taken. This patriotic reasoning however had been so 
satisfactory at Halifax, that complimentary letters were 
received from Ad. Berkley himself,, highly approving 
the spirit in which they were inculcated, and remarking- 
how easily Peace between the United States and Britain 
might be preserved, if ^Aarmeasure of our national rights 
could be made the prevailing standard of the country. 

When the news arrived in England, although the gen- 
eral sentiment of the nation was not prepared for the for- 
mal avowal and justification of this unparallelled aggres- 
sion, yet there were not wanting persons there, ready 
to claim and maiiita'm the right of searching national ships 
for deserters — It was said at the time, but for this we 
must of course rest upon the aedit of inoffigial authori- 
ty, to have been made a serious question in the Cabinet 
Council ; nor was its determination there ascribed to 
the eloquence of the gentlemen who became the official 
organ of its communication — Add to this a circum- 
stance, which without claiming the irrefragable credence 
of a diplomatic note, has yet its weight upon the com- 
mon sense of mankind ,- that in all the daily newspapers 
known to be in the ministerial interest, Berkley was jus- 
tified and applauded in every variety of form that publi- 
cation could assume, excepting only that of official Pro- 
clamation. — The only part of his orders there disappro- 
ved was the reciprocal offer which he made of submitting 
his own ships to be searched in return — that was very 
unequivocally disclaimed — The ruffian right of superior 
force was the solid base upon which the claim was as- 



27 

serted, and so familiar wrs this argument grown to the 
casuists of British national Jurisprudence, that the right 
of a British man of war to search an American frigate, 
was to them a self-evident proof against the right of the 
American frigate to search the British man of war. 
The same tone has been constantly kept up until our ac- 
counts of latest date ; and have been recently further 
invigorated by a very explicit call for war with the Uni- 
ted States, which they contend could be of no possible 
injury to Britain, and which they urge upon tlie min- 
istry as affording'them an excellent opportunity to ac- 
complish a disinember7nejit of this Union — These sen- 
timents have even been avowed in Parliament, where 
the nobleman who moved the address of the house of 
Lords in answer to the king's speech, declared that the 
right of searching national ships, ought to be maintain- 
ed against the Americans, and disclaimed only with 
respect to European sovereigns. 

In the mean time Admiral Berkley, by a court mar- 
tial of his own subordinate officers, hung one of the men 
taken from the Chesapeake, andcalled his name Jenkin 
Ratford. — There was, according to the answer so fre- 
quently given by the Lords of the Admiralty, upon ap- 
plications for the discharge of impressed Americans, no 
such man on boaixi the ship. The man thus executed, 
had been taken from the Chesapeake by the name of 
Wilson. It is said, that on his trial he was identified 
by one or two witnesses who knew him, and that before 
he was turned off, he confessed his name to be Ratford, 
and that he was born in England. But it has also been 
said that Ratford is now living in Pennsylvania — and af- 
ter the character which the disavowal of Admiral Berk- 
ley's own government has given to his conduct, what 
confidence can be claimed, or due to the proceedings of 
a court-marticil of his associates held to sanction his 
proceedings. The three other men had not even been 
demanded in his orders ; they were taken by the sole 
authority of the British searching lieutenant^ after the 
surrender of the Chesapeake. There was not the shad- 
ow of a pretence before the court-martial that they were 
British subjects, or born in any of the British domin- 
ions. Yet b}^ tlijs court-martial they were sentence^ 



28 

to suffer death. They were reprieved from execution, 
only upon condition of renouncing their rights as Amer- 
icans by vokuitary service in the king's ships — They 
have never been restored. To complete the catastro- 
phe with which this bloody tragedy was concluded, Ad- 
miral Berkley himself, in sanctioning the doom of these 
men — thus obtained — thus tried — and thus sentenced, 
read them a grave moral lecture on the enormity of 
their crime, in its tendency to provoke a war between 
the United States and Great Britain. 

Yet amidst all this parade of disavowal by his govern- 
ment — amidst all these professions of readiness to make 
reparation, not a single mark of the slightest disapproba- 
tion appears ever to have been manifested to that ofii- 
cer. His instructions were executed upon the Chesa- 
peake in June — Rumors of his recal have been circula- 
ted here — But on leaving the station at Halifax in De- 
cember, he received a complimentary address from the 
colonial assembly, and assured them in answ^er, that he 
had no official information of his recal. From thence 
he went to the West Indies ; and on leaving Bermuda 
for England in February, was addressed again by that 
colonial government, in terms of high panegyric upon 
his energy, with manifest allusion to his atchievement 
upon the Chesapeake. 

Under all these circumstances, without applying any 
of the maxims of a suspicious policy to the British pro- 
fessions, I may still be permitted to believe that their 
ministry never seriously intended to make us honorable 
reparation, or, indeed, any reparation at all, for that 
"unfortunate affair." 

It is impossible for r.ny man to form an accurate idea 
of the British policy towards the United States, without 
taking into consideration the state of parties in that gov- 
ernment ; and the views, characters and opinions of 
the individuals at their helm of State — A liberal and a 
hostile policy towards America, are among the strong- 
est marks of distinction between the political systems of 
the rival statesmen of that kingdom — The liberal party 
are reconciled to our Independence ; and though ex- 
tremely tenacious of every right of their own country, 
are systematically disposed to preserve peace with the 



29 

United States. Their opponents harbor sentiments of 
a very different description — Their system is coercion 
— Their object the recovery of their lost dominion in 
North America. This party now stands high in power. 
Although Admiral Berkley may never have received 
Avritten orders from them for his enterprize upon the 
Chesapeake, yet in giving his instructions to the squad- 
ron at Norfolk, he knew full well under what administra- 
tion he was acting. Every measure of that administra- 
tion towards us since that time has been directed to the 
same purpose — to break down the spirit of our national 
Independence. Their purpose, as far as can be collect- 
ed from their acts, is to force us into a war with them 
or with their enemies ; to leave us only the bitter alter- 
native of their vengeance or their protection. 

Both these parties are no doubt willing that we 
should join them in the war of their nation against 
France and her allies — The late administration would 
YiRve drawn us into it by treaty, the present are attempt- 
ing it by compulsion. The former would have admit- 
ted us as allies, the latter will have us no otherwise 
than as colonists. On the late debates in Parliament, 
the lord chanceller freely avowed tliat the orders of 
Council of 11th November were intended to make 
America at last sensible of the policy of joining Eng- 
land against France. 

This too, Sir, is the substantial argument of Mr. 
Pickering's letter. The suspicions of a design in our 
own administration to plunge us into a war with Britain, 
I never have shared. Our administration have every 
interest and every motive that can influence the conduct 
of man to deter them from any such purpose. Nor have 
I seen any thing in their measures bearing the slightest 
indication of it. But between a design of war with Eng- 
land, and a surrender of our national freedom for the 
sake of war with the rest of Europe, there is a material 
difference. This is the policy now in substance recom- 
mended to us, and for which the interposition of the 
commercial States is called. For this, not only are all 
the outrages of Britain to be forgotten, but the very as- 
sertion of our rights is to be branded with cdium. — 
Jmpress7neiit — Neutral trade — British tcxatioii--^\t ry 



so 

thing that can distinguish a state of national freedom 
from a state of national vassalage, is to be surrendered at 
discretion. In the face of every fact we^pe told to believe 
every profession- -In the midst of ever)^ indignity^ we are 
pointed to British protection as our only shield against 
the imiversal conqueror. Everj^ phantom of jealousy 
and fear is evoked— The image of Friuice with a scourge- 
in her hand is impressed into the service, to lash us into 
the refuge of obedience to Britain — Insinuations are 
even made that if Britain " with her thousand ships of 
war," has not destroyed our commerce, it has been ow- 
ing to her indulgence, and we are almost threatened in 
her name with the " destruction of our fairest cities." 

Not one act of hostility to Britain has been committed 
by us ; she has not a pi'etence of that kind to alledge — 
But if she will wage war upon us, are we to do nothing 
in our own defence ? If she issues orders of universal 
plunder upon our commerce^ are we not to withhold it 
from her grasp ? Is American pillage one of those rights 
which she has claimed and exercised until we are fore- 
closed from any attempt to obstruct its collection ? For 
what purpose are we requii-ed to make this sacrifice of 
every thing that can gi^ e valor to the name of freemen, 
this abandonment for the very right of self-preservation? 
Is it to avoid a war ? Alas ! Sir, it does not offer even 
this plausible plea for pusillanimity--For as submission 
would make us to all substantial purposes British colo- 
nies, her enemies would unquestionably treat us as such, 
and after degrading oursehes into voluntary servitude 
to escape a ^^'ar with her, we should incur inevitable war 
with all her enemies, and be doomed to share the desti- 
nies of her conflict with a world in arms. 

Between this unqualified submission, and offensive 
resistance against the war upon maritime neutrality wag- 
ed by the concurring decrees of all the great belligerent 
powers, the Embargo was adopted, and has been hither- 
to continued. So far was it from being dictated by 
France, that it was calculated to withdraw, and has with- 
drawn from within her reach all the means of compulsion 
which her subsequent decrees would have put in her pos- 
session. It has been added to the motives both of France 
and England for preserving peace with us, and hasdimin- 



31 

ished their mducemcnts to war. It has lessened th(fir ca- 
pacities of inflicting injury upon us, and given us some 
preparation for resistance to them — It has taken from 
their violence the lure of interest — It has dashed the 
philter of pillage from the lips of rapine. That it is dis- 
tressing to ourselves — that it calls for the fortitude of a 
people, determined to maintain their rights, is not to be 
denied. But the only alternative was between that and 
war. Whether it will yet save us from that calamity, 
cannot be determined, but if not, it will prepare us for 
the further struggle to which we may be called. Its 
double tendency of promoting peace and preparing for 
wnv, in its operation upon both the belligerent rivals, i^ 
the great advantage, which more than outweig'h all its 
evils. 

If arty statesman can point out another alternative, I 
am ready to hear him, and for any practicable ex- 
pedient to lend him every possible assistance. But 
let not that expedient be, submission to trade under 
British licences, and British taxation. We are told that 
even under these restrictions we may yet trade to the 
British dominions, to Africa and China, and with the col- 
onies of France, Spain, aad Holland. I ask nothow much 
of this trade would be left, \t hen our intercourse with 
the whole continent of Europe being cut o'fF, would leave 
us no means of piuxhase, and no market for sale ? — I 
ask not, what trade we could enjoy with the colonies of 
nations with which we should be at war ? I ask not 
how long Britain would leave open to us avenues of 
trade, which even in these very orders of Council, she 
boasts of leaving open as a special indulgence ? If we 
yield the principle, we abandon all pretence of national 
sovereignty. — To yearn for the fragments of trade which 
might be left, would be to pine for the crumbs of com- 
mercial servitude. — The boon, which we should humili- 
ate ourselves to accept from British bounty, "\vould soon 
be Avithdrawn. Submission never yet sat boundaries to 
encroachment. From pleading for half the empire, we 
should sink into supplicants for life. — We should sup- 
plicate in vain. If we must fall, let us fail, freemen — If 
we must perish, let it be in defence of our rights. 



32- 

To conclude, Sir, I am not sensible of any necessity 
for the extraordinary interference of the commercial 
States, to controul the general Councils of the nation. — 
If any interference could at this critical extremity of our 
affairs have a kindly effect upon our common welfare, 
it would be an interference to promote union and not 
division — to urge mutual confidence, and not universal 
distrust — to strengthen the, arm and not to relax the 
sinews of the nation. Our suffering, and our dangers, 
though differing perhaps in degree, are universal in ex- 
tent. — As their causes are justly chargeable, so their 
removal is dependent, not upon ourselves, but upon 
others. But while the spirit oi Independence shall con- 
tinue to beat in unison with the pulses of the nation, no 
danger will be truly formidable — Our duties are, to 
prepare with concerted energy, for those which threat- 
en us, to meet them without dismay, and to rely for 
their issue upon Heaven. 

I am, with great respect and attachment, 
Dear Sir, your friend and humble servant, 
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 

Hon. Harjrison Gray Otis. 



LEA. ^'09 



